Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash (opens in new tab)

On benefits and worker's comp: almost single UberX driver I've talked to has raved about Uber. Spontaneously. Why? Because the main way Uber saves money, compared to traditional taxi companies, isn't "avoiding paying those pesky benefits" or workers comp. They save money by not getting taxi medallions--part of a regulatory quota system that serves no purpose other than to artificially limit the number of cabs.

Note that since cab drivers can't usually afford hundreds of thousands of dollars for a taxi medallion, they have to lease them--so it's primarily people with a few hundred thousand dollars to spare (taxi companies and their investors) not drivers, that benefit from this hamstrung competition.

A lot of people criticize Uber because "it isn't really innovative, they are just skirting regulations." Well, maybe avoiding the regulations is the innovative part. It's a loophole, and to me (not a lawyer) it seems shocking that it's legally workable. But they've dramatically increased the incomes and freedom of cab drivers, and substantially decreased the price of cabs (I only take UberX, and it's at least 30% less than an equivalent cab here in Orange County, CA). And now that drivers and customers have experienced a medallion-free taxi system, the taxi companies are going to have a hard time regaining control.

Scavengers is probably extreme, but they do tend to paint a half picture when it comes to the externalities of their services.

They're just trying to pass as a real cab company:

http://setexasrecord.com/news/280325-east-texas-family-files...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/nyregion/new-york-taxi-dri...

As a user f Uber since very early on, I half agree, half disagree.

Uber is awesome -- ut the costing model fucking sucks.

When in SF I lived in Presidio and Upper Market/Noe Valley area...

Getting the SF cabs to come to my house was so infuriating; nobody wanted to come pick me up in Presidio or Noe Valley.

I was actually banned from multiple cab companies, as - it turns out - they share caller data: I was calling multiple cab companies to my house (Because nobody would show) as a shotgun approach to getting a cab. A dispatcher told me I was blacklisted due to this practice; my response was that if the cab had shown up, I wouldnt do this...

They didnt care. (I had MANY calls where I called 20+ times and waited 2 hours.)

FUC THE SF CABS. PERIOD.

HOWEVER; I think that Uber (and ALL cabs) are way over priced.

The fact that I had to pay $75 to take me from SF to SFO - where I was FLYING to LAX from SFO for $99 - I found this ridiculous!

The fact is that all CAB fees are just not congruous with the service.

When A cab ride from a home in SF to SFO costs ~$80, but takes ~30 minutes, you're paying the equiv $160K per year for the services of a DRIVER...

This is not sustainable.

> Muzzafar was cooperative, Mahoney said, and “claimed he was driving around and his Uber application was turned on and he was waiting for a fare or job close by.” [1]

I don't think this case is going to have any dispute about the facts. He did not have a passenger, was not enroute to a passenger, but had the Uber App on and was driving around waiting for a fare.

[1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/uber-driver-arrested-...

What if he wasn't currently en-route to pick up a passenger but had the app open, available to be assigned a new ride?

My guess is that he had recently dropped off a passenger and was trying to get back to a location that he thought would make it more likely for him to be selected for another ride.

Do you think Uber should be liable then?

I'm sure this ruling here gives them a bit of the cold sweats:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/27/senders-of-texts-to-driv...

Granted it happened in NJ, not CA, and it isn't directly applicable anyway, but they might have a hard time with the same sort of idea applied to the way their entire dispatching model works.

I would think if the plaintiffs could prove conclusively the guy was actively operating the Uber app at the time of the accident (which they tend to imply in these stories but I have no idea if that's just spin) it would be nearly a slam dunk case in front of your average jury.

Sometimes the employer is liable, yes: http://www.atblaw.net/blog/tag/employee-injured-on-way-to-wo...

Under your Google scenario, presumably the person using Google Maps on Android wasn't operating as a driver working for Google. Uber hired him to drive cars, so they're liable for what he does while he drives them.

If I was under a sort of employment contract with Google and using a Google's device and app as a part of Google Street View project, they should be liable for the accidents.

You would have to read the complaint for the actual language as the article contains an ambiguous summary. I agree with your reasoning, that it sounds like I could sue Facebook if a driver was looking at Facebook while driving. However, if he was looking at the Uber app as part of his duties with Uber, Uber may be liable. If true that Uber instructs its drivers not to use the app while driving, Uber may have a defense.

I agree with you. I don't understand why you have been downvoted. Am not from US so maybe there is a different thought process.